Print

Mail

wiki links

Taiwan has the right of way

China's "Anti-Secession" Law,has identified conditions that would compel Beijing to use force against Taiwan.

However, given the degree of importance attached to these conditions, they deserve to be better defined.

Whenever the boundary of a condition isn't delineated clearly, people choose to err on the conservative side. To use an analogy of driving a car, it's like yielding when you are unsure if you have the right of way. Perhaps that's how Beijing believes it can get something for nothing.

But the establishment of a "minimum fig leaf" could help.

Article 8 of the "law" states the clearest condition for the application of "non-peaceful" means. It states that if "secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur ... the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

This condition is saying that Taiwan hasn't fully "seceded," and whatever it has done so far or will do in the future does not qualify for Beijing's application of non-peaceful means unless full secession becomes a fact.

This is one of those instances where the most important message is in between the lines and what has not been revealed could count just as much. The salient point is that steps taken toward full secession would not elicit a non-peaceful response so long as the last step is not taken.

The room for Taiwan's continuing democratization without drawing military attacks from China could be substantial if a minimum condition for "full secession" -- as Beijing defines it -- could be determined.

It appears that Beijing can't afford a war in the foreseeable future. They have the 2008 Summer Olympics to worry about. After 2008, the US military will probably have substantially disengaged from Iraq and Japan's military will be on its way to a full build-up.

Japan will always weigh prohibitively on Beijing's war impulses; heavy damage will be inflicted on China's economy as a consequence of war with Taiwan, and this could have a domino effect on China's stability and threaten the Chinese Communist Party's grip on power. Therefore, Beijing will use any excuse to avoid going to war. That might actually be what prompted the enactment of the "law" in the first place. Reportedly, the "law" was intended to guard against the possibility that Beijing wouldn't go to war even if Taiwan formally declared independence.

With that in mind, one is justified to define the minimum condition for full secession to be a universally-accepted bare minimum, the realization of which would certainly make China "lose face" internationally -- namely, Taiwan's formal declaration of independence accompanied by a new title and a new flag. The absence of this condition constitutes the "minimum fig leaf."

As a consequence, the second condition of Article 8 which states: "possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted" becomes somewhat moot. The reason is that Beijing can always fall back on the excuse that "possibilities" exist as long as the "minimum fig leaf" is in place.

The last condition. which reads: "major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur" is beyond the control of the Taiwanese people. Therefore, it should be ignored too.

The most severe test to the usefulness of the "minimum fig leaf" can be conducted by examining the likelihood of Beijing's use of force, in the event that a brand new constitution for Taiwan -- complete with a new definition of the national territory and a new national anthem -- were brought into being.

As an immediate reaction, Beijing might warn that Taiwan is getting ready to declare independence. But Beijing could be placated with repeated reminders that the "minimum fig leaf" has not been abandoned. Beijing would soon realize that a new constitution is but a necessary step for Taiwan's continuing democratization. Granted, it's a big step. But it would certainly be no more significant than the one undertaken by the Taiwanese people when they first elected their own government.

Taiwan has the right of way, and should just take it.

Huang Jei-hsuan
California
This story has been viewed 2165 times.